|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Quakers and communion
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Right I think something needs saying. Quakers have kept the old Nonconformist notion of membership where membership is really only for the keenies i.e. those so involved in the group that they hold office.
The result can be that the majority of regular attendees are not actually members. Sometimes they do not even realise they are not members.
Jengie.
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Smugness over teetotalism is not so far removed from smugness over pacifism or smugness over credobaptism or whatever else Christians get smug about
Ah! Smugness and Christianity. When I wrote above about "spiritual but not religious" there are many people who feel an inner sense of connection with some power greater than themselves, but who find it difficult to assent to a creed. And why should they? there are substantial differences between what different Christian groups believe. And even more differences from what the other world religions believe. It's perfectly plausible to see religions as pathways up the mountain. Starting from different places which are full of cultural overlays. But all arriving ultimately in the same place at the summit of the mountain. I once thought that the Quaker emphasis on the Inner Light without creeds or sacraments could be perfect for people drawn to the flame of existence. The more restrictions it puts on its members, the less attractive it becomes for anyone seeking the source of the light.
But you have completely missed the point of everything myself, Gamaliel and Timothy have written. How could Quakerism sustain itself if it was a theological/spiritual free-for-all? It has to have some beliefs - the interpretation of those beliefs may vary, but without them what's the point of Quakerism having any distinctives? And as has been pointed out, there is nothing stopping non-members from attending meetings. As I said, the RSOF is a religious society, ultimately. I don't see what your comments have to do with my comment that you posted, because smugness over 'right beliefs' happens in any belief system and not necessarily religious ones - vegetarians, people doing a paleo diet, humanists, what have you. I was simply illustrating that it's what humans do, not saying anything about Quakerism.
Also the non-members in question in the opening post are Anglicans - hardly likely to object to creeds. I disagree with the premise that the fewer boundaries, the more appealing the Quakers would be. People want their denomination to have something distinctive about it, not just a social group. Indeed, I think a 'fierce' sort of Quakerism going back to its radical roots would do it the world of good, rather than the woollyness people associate with it.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Also probably worth highlighting that once someone is a member of the Quaker meeting, they can represent it in the way that a minister represents other church denominations.
So understandably there might be things one has to agree to.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It's all relative, PaulTh.
The Quakers don't put restrictions on members over issues of alcohol or tobacco, sexual orientation and so on.
The worst I can say about them is what they acknowledge themselves - that they can take a passive-aggressive approach and sometimes can come over as if they disapprove of other people's practices - which was something that got them into trouble in their early days - refusing to doff their hats or interrupting services in parish churches by shouting, 'Come down, hireling!'
In that, they're no different to any other group. I've come across Baptists who're holier-than-thou in their attitudes towards Anglicans, Anglicans who're sniffy towards non-conformists, Orthodox who are sniffy towards everyone ...
I can see what Mudfrog is getting at - it can sound as if they're saying, 'We don't see any point in the Eucharist so we don't understand why you do ...'
But it's more a case of of them considering it ok for anyone else - provided they don't expect them to go along with it.
I can see that the SA position is different to the Quaker one on this issue but it too can easily be misconstrued.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Revspeak alert
Is being a Quaker more belief in a particular Praxis than belief in a set of doctrines?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Disagreements about matters of peace and social justice can get rather intense, in that typically passive-aggressive Quaker way, but that's really a different issue.
Most people call it anger and/or division. It's one of the less admirable traits of RSOF that they use soem words in rather different ways than the rest of us in order to demomnstrate that they are true to their precepts. Mind you, what's their "approach" if it isn't a creed?
In the UK RSOF are Registered Charities. There's npow a much tighter prescriptive regime around such registration (given the benefits of it - ie no tax, able to claim gift aid) and the Charities Commission are increasingly putting charities to task on whether the aims of the charity are being met. Could Quakers' prove their religious as opposed to their spiritual delivery in this way?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Most people call it anger and/or division. It's one of the less admirable traits of RSOF that they use soem words in rather different ways than the rest of us in order to demomnstrate that they are true to their precepts. Mind you, what's their "approach" if it isn't a creed?
Fairly obviously, it depends on your definition of the term "creed". If you insist that "we have no creed" is itself a creed, then there isn't much to argue with.
But the root of Quakerism is not that it is undogmatic - it is just at odds with the dominant understanding of Christian faith which depends on historic assertions of belief.
Fox, Penn and the others were very sure that they were right and that their opponents were wrong. They didn't go in for this idea that all beliefs were worthy of respect - and used pretty fruity language about the destination of those who frequented the steeple-houses.
Such sentiments are obviously part of history (though to be fair, the religious establishment also made some pretty wild statements and persisted in discriminated against Quakers for a long time) and the dominant Quaker mentality today is non-condemnatory.
But in a strict sense they are non-Creedal. Whether one takes that as itself being a creed is a question of personal preference, I think.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Fairly obviously, it depends on your definition of the term "creed". If you insist that "we have no creed" is itself a creed, then there isn't much to argue with ...
But in a strict sense they are non-Creedal. Whether one takes that as itself being a creed is a question of personal preference, I think.
Yes. What tends to get forgotten is that other groups in "old Dissent", such as the Baptists and Independents (which predate the RSOF) were also non-creedal. Hints of that survive today in that the Baptist Union of Great Britain does not have a Statement of Faith but a much shorter "Declaration of Principle".
Having said that, quite a number of individual churches have signed up to Statements of Faith such as the one produced by the Evangelical Alliance. Some churches do have doctrinal statements in their Trust Deeds, which strictly refer to what may or may not be promulgated within their buildings.
This has caused problems in that it assumes that "we all believe the same" and it becomes difficult to "police" heresy, which could be one reason why many Baptist churches slipped into Unitarianism in the 18th century. I also have an interesting survival of this attitude in that I have one member who shies at using creedal statements in church, not because he doesn't believe but because he sees doing so as alien to our tradition.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Revspeak alert
Is being a Quaker more belief in a particular Praxis than belief in a set of doctrines?
Pretty much, yes.
Also, in any meeting everyone may believe slightly different things - but they will overlap a lot. I think of it as a very messy venn diagram.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes. What tends to get forgotten is that other groups in "old Dissent", such as the Baptists and Independents (which predate the RSOF) were also non-creedal. Hints of that survive today in that the Baptist Union of Great Britain does not have a Statement of Faith but a much shorter "Declaration of Principle".
Well I don't know about this, I think it depends who you are and what kind of baptist you are. For some bapists, the 1689 Westminster Confession is far far closer to being a creed than what we're discussing above.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
The point is, I think, that until Fox, most Christians in England believed that there were a bunch of things one had to believe to be saved. So the arguing was about what those things were and what the lines were.
Fox turned all that on its head by saying no, what is important is the indwelling of the Spirit. And subsequent generations of Quakers distilled this into what we have today.
That is a clear difference between the Quakers (and modern Unitarians) and almost all other Christian groups. Even the baptists ultimately believed in doctrines that needed to be believed to be saved.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
For some bapists, the 1689 Westminster Confession is far far closer to being a creed than what we're discussing above.
I think you mean the Second Baptist Confession of Faith (Westminster is earlier). That's true, and I'd forgotten about it, but it only applied to the Particulars and not to the Generals. To this day, that stream - now the Grace Baptists - is much tighter on doctrine.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can see that the SA position is different to the Quaker one on this issue but it too can easily be misconstrued.
Indeed - we have no credal, ecclesiological or theological objection to the sacraments; our non-practice is pragmatic and an affirmation both of the immediacy of saving grace threough the shed blood of Christ and the Wesleyan (not Quaker) inspired notion that all of life is sacramental.
The great 'sacramental hymn' of The Salvation Army has, as its first verse:
My life must be Christ's broken bread,
My love his outpoured wine,
A cup o'erfilled, a table spread
Beneath his name and sign.
That other souls, refreshed and fed,
May share his life through mine.
The difference between us and the Quakers is that we, fully subscribing to all the creeds, still believe that sacraments are a means of grace; we believe in the proclaiming the Lord's death till he comes again. We are fully immersed in atonement theology and the efficacy of the shed blood of Christ. Unlike the Quakers, obviously, who do not have a theology, a doctrine, a creed of atonement and therefore a eucharist would be total noinesense to them, having to foundation or reason.
I often say, in response to the charge that TSA doesn't practice the sacraments: 'But we belong to a Church that does.'
[ 09. December 2015, 08:22: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Which isn't a uniquely Quaker state of affairs, of course ...
But I do think there are some particular distinctives here that distinguish the Quakers from other groups that might be non-creedal or non sacramental on a formal sense.
I liked the 'weighty' observation among the initial responses to the OP - 'is everything sacramental except the eucharist?'
I think that identifies one of the key issues here. At what point does 'non-creedal' become 'anti-creedal' or being 'non-sacramental' become anti-sacramental?
The SA don't practice communion but I can't see them deferring or withholding membership from those who might wish to continue receiving communion elsewhere. I don't get the impression that Mudfrog despises the practice nor that he thinks that people who do are somehow deficient or 'weaker' in their faith - far from it.
However, the Quaker dictum, 'do so as long as you must' - whilst containing a depth of practical wisdom, could be construed as,'well, you carry on with such trifles as long as you feel you ought, Friend, but once you've matured and outgrown outward forms then you'd be in a better position to apply to join us.'
I'm sure it's not meant as bluntly as that - but it does seem as if the eucharist is a sticking point in a way it isn't so much of one for the SA who also have historical reasons to be wary of the potentially divisive aspects of eucharistic practice.
That said, the Quaker position follows as a logical corollary from their principles - and it would wrong to deny them those or to cavil at them for holding their views in all good conscience.
At the 'heart' of the Quaker way lies something very profound, I think - a reminder of 'first principles' and the essence of things. I sort of 'get' that when I'm around Friends without seeing them as in any way more or less irritating, judgemental or prone to pettiness than the rest of us in our own various ways.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
I would insist, contra mudfrog, that it is not the case that Quakers do not have a theology. We don't have a creed (defined as a specific verbal formula to which one must assent), but theology we've got, starting with Barclay's Apology. And that's by no means the end of it. However, certain themes that have been prominent in Christian theology (especially parsing the internal relations of the persons of the Trinity) have no place in Quaker theology at all.
There is a certain aggressive skepticism about speculative theology in Quaker circles, it's true. My father used to use the word with much the same tone a Southern Baptist might use if forced to mention sodomy, and I was in my late teens before I realized that theology was not something inherently shameful...
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I would insist, contra mudfrog, that it is not the case that Quakers do not have a theology.
In that case you have a creed - you just call it something else
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
An 'anti-creed' ... rather like 'anti-matter'?
The thing is, though ExclamationMark, I've come across plenty of Baptists who also claim not to have a creed - or at least to acknowledge that they'd sign up to the historic creeds if necessary - but they don't think it's necessary ...
And to be quite blunt, they can also sound quite smug about it too ...
Which is a problem all of us who hold to any particular position strongly are going to face sooner or later ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The thing is, though ExclamationMark, I've come across plenty of Baptists who also claim not to have a creed - or at least to acknowledge that they'd sign up to the historic creeds if necessary - but they don't think it's necessary ...
... which is fine when there is a general consensus on belief. But it ceases to work when someone says something "off the wall": everyone knows that it's unorthodox, but there's no mechanism for making a ruling on it.
Like the Baptist line on congregational church government: "everyone knows" that's what we do (and it is enshrined in some church Trust Deeds) - but it's not in the Declaration of Principle.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
'Culture eats policy for breakfast,' as one of my friends likes to observe. Meaning that there are customs, styles, aesthetics that people often think they can change or override by simply getting something written down in a policy or directive. It doesn't work.
Would it be fair to characterise the written down method of doing things - creeds, policies, rules - as more top-down than the vaguer but more friendly and egalitarian method of developing a 'way'?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The thing is, though ExclamationMark, I've come across plenty of Baptists who also claim not to have a creed - or at least to acknowledge that they'd sign up to the historic creeds if necessary - but they don't think it's necessary ...
... which is fine when there is a general consensus on belief. But it ceases to work when someone says something "off the wall": everyone knows that it's unorthodox, but there's no mechanism for making a ruling on it.
Like the Baptist line on congregational church government: "everyone knows" that's what we do (and it is enshrined in some church Trust Deeds) - but it's not in the Declaration of Principle.
We have a process for that, its called a meeting for worship for clearness.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is, none of these things are 'neutral' neither are they clear cut ... the historic Creeds were arrived at in a 'conciliar' way ... even if they were called by Emperors and heirarchs there was still a working-things-through process going on.
However we cut it, though, the results we've inherited were a close-run thing, though ...
Why should a Quaker 'meeting for clearness' or a congregational 'church meeting' in a Baptist context somehow be seen as squeaky-clean whereas an Ecumenical Council consisting of bishops and clergy be seen as rather more suspect?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I do have sympathy ... on a political level I sometimes think we're better off here in the UK having an 'unwritten constitution' - rather one that's written down, like the US one - which leads to interminable arguments about what was or wasn't meant by the 2nd Amendment and so on ...
One could also argue that the US Constitution operates in a more 'sola scriptura' kind of way whereas the British one is more analogous to 'Tradition' in the RC or Orthodox sense ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
But I wouldn't want to push or stretch the analogies too far ...
FWIW, I do think that Creeds are there to provide a framework rather than a strait-jacket ... but I do have some sympathy with ExclamationMark's suggestion that to be non-creedal is, in one sense, a form of being creedal ...
Just as attempts to be 'non-traditional' end up creating new traditions ...
That's fine - provided we recognise that's what we're doing and don't pretend that we are somehow a cut above all the mucky traditional malarkey ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Also probably worth highlighting that once someone is a member of the Quaker meeting, they can represent it in the way that a minister represents other church denominations.
Not exactly, since we allow that Friends will have different views on aspects of Quakerism considered to be traditional. For example, the Simplicity Testimony. . . .I may see it in one way and live it that way. Another Friend may see it another way and live it another way.
So, it is hard for us to make any hard and fast rules about our traditional practices and points of view. Through the years, we have valued a personal relationship with the Divine which informs each person's inner guide.
It may be difficult for people to find a codified sense of what Quakers believe and easy to chalk it up to loose boundaries. Conversely, it may be hard for a Quaker to feel comfortable with the emphasis some other denominations place on a specifically stated set of beliefs that all are assumed to hold.
Some Friends try to limit intellectual attempts to explain, and I am one of them. My personal take is that we are all led to that which spiritually resonates in our hearts, and the inner logic unfolds from there. Since we are a diverse humanity, it follows that we are also spiritually diverse.
sabine
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Why should a Quaker 'meeting for clearness' or a congregational 'church meeting' in a Baptist context somehow be seen as squeaky-clean whereas an Ecumenical Council consisting of bishops and clergy be seen as rather more suspect?
Firstly, I am not saying an ecumenical council is suspect.
But.
A meeting for worship for clearness is not attempting to set doctrine for everybody for all times.
Rather it would be an attempt to collectively discern, usually within a local meeting, whether an individual's sense they are being called by the spirit to do something is indeed a leading of the spirit or simply something that they desire. It is about trying to discern the leading for that individual at that point in their life, recognising that it may entirely to different to somebody else's spiritual journey. In that sense its aim is much more limited.
It might be most accurate to say that quakers who engage in unprogrammed worship believe in the process within that - rather than a particular outcome of it.
Going back to the op, if you fundamentally don't get that idea, then I think you probably don't grok the British quaker faith tradition - it is not just social liberalism + meditation - and this process is what binds together people of disparate views.
[ 14. December 2015, 20:49: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I get that - I was using hyperbole to make a point ...
I'm not saying that a Quaker worship meeting for clearness is 'suspect' either ... as it happens, I'm quite intrigued by Quaker discernment processes as I'm pretty sure (in different ways and in our own various contexts) the rest of us could learn something from them.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating a pick-and-mix approach ... 'Hmmmm ... luvverly shiny discernment process over there with the Quakers ... let's replicate it or borrow it ...'
I probably wasn't making my point very clearly ... I certainly wasn't out to denigrate the Quaker meeting / discernment processes nor the practice of congregational church meetings as found among the Baptists. All I am saying is that these things aren't magically free from 'taint' ... we're all fallible human beings ...
And yes, that applies to the guys who sat at the Ecumenical Councils too ... but I'm prepared to accept that God was able to work in and through all that - in the same way as I'm sure he does in Quaker discernment processes and in congregational 'church meetings' - although all these things are also capable of being hijacked or distorted by anyone with an agenda and a degree of support from some group or other ...
If the Quakers have found some way of minimising those risks, then good for them.
I don't think I've ever caricatured the Quakers as simply social liberalism with a nip or two or meditation thrown in ... that would be as insulting as it is inaccurate.
I'm more than happy to accept Quakers on their own terms. I've mentioned a few times here that I've been impressed with what I've seen of Quakerism - which doesn't mean I can't have a wry chuckle at it at times - which is what I do with every other religious tradition I'e encountered ...
That doesn't mean I don't take it seriously.
As to whether I 'grok' ('get', 'grasp'?) Quakerism is another issue. I don't pretend to 'get' it - nor would I unless I'd become a Quaker and been following the Quaker way for some considerable time - and even then I wouldn't lay claim to understanding the whole thing ...
Same with any other religious tradition. Having some kind of view of Roman Catholicism, for instance, isn't the same as actually becoming a Roman Catholic and participating in its inner life.
Same with Baptists, Methodism or anything else.
Going back to the OP - I was simply asking a question and the various Friends here have taken pains to answer that question - and I'm grateful to you all for that.
I'm not out to 'diss' Quakers, far from it - and as I've said several times throughout this thread I'm more than happy to accept the various explanations that Friends have put forward as to what might have happened in the incident reported in the OP.
I 'get' that Quakers might see a desire to continue receiving the Eucharist as some kind of indicator that the person involved might not fully 'grasp' the Quaker way - because they are demonstrating a reliance on 'outward forms'.
In the same way - whilst I might not be happy about it - I 'get' why certain Churches - the RCs and the Orthodox for instance - don't practice 'open communion' in the way that the CofE does these days and the way that most non-conformist churches do.
A different understanding applies in each case - and I 'get' and respect that.
As far as Quakerism goes, I don't pretend to 'get' it because my exposure to it doesn't go much further than attendance at a couple of meetings, an overnight stay in a Quaker Study Centre and a visit to the Quaker Tapestry in Kendal - alongside knowing Quakers as work colleagues and as student friends in the past.
I'm simply asking questions and in the course of doing that, sometimes elbow a vase or a lamp off the table -- I will endeavour to clear up any mess I may have caused.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I should probably have specified rhetorical you in my last paragraph, I was implying that if a recent attender didn't get this they might not be ready for membership.
[ 14. December 2015, 21:47: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - fair enough ...
As regards the OP incident - or alleged incident - I have no idea how long the women in question were attending Quaker meetings.
I can only speak for myself. Through the Ship and real-life contacts with Quakers I'm sufficiently aware of their position on 'outward forms' - so if I were ever to apply for membership of the Religious Society of Friends (and I'm not intending to, by the way - no disrespect to the Friends intended) ... I'd be sufficiently prepared for that so that any 'discernment' process around that issue wouldn't take me by surprise.
Perhaps these women were taken by surprise? Perhaps they'd misunderstood? Perhaps things hadn't been explained to them adequately at the outset ...
Who knows?
I can understand why Friends might have concerns about the 'readiness' of potential members if they were to persist in observing 'outward forms' of one kind or other - but one might easily turn it round and suggest that the Friends themselves might not understand what these women intended by it ...
If I persist in receiving communion, for instance, it doesn't necessarily follow that I believe that this is the 'only' way that God can be apprehended, as it were, or his grace received ...
Nor that people who don't observe some formally eucharistic practice in either an 'ordinance' or sacramental sense are somehow missing out on God's grace ...
But then, if the eucharist is important to me, I'm hardly likely - unlike the women in the OP - to want to join myself formally to a group - such as the Quakers or the Salvation Army who, for different reasons, choose not to observe this particular rite.
That doesn't mean I'd never attend a Quaker meeting or a service in a Salvation Army Citadel ... but it would mean that I'd be unlikely to apply for full membership of those bodies. Which would be fine by them ... they aren't missing out because I'm not there ... they probably benefit from my absence ...
So, yes, I 'get' what you're saying Doublethink ... I think.
FWIW, to borrow an RC term, I'm convinced that there is a 'charism' running through Quakerism as a group/movement with its roots in the radical Christian tradition of the 17th century.
Whatever we call that or however we label it - the Inner Light or 'charism' or whatever else - there is a 'there' there ... and I don't think that the Friends are saying that because there is a 'there' there that there isn't a 'there' anywhere else - and most non-Friends (if I can put it that way) would probably say the same in reverse as it were.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Gamaliel
You might like to think of who goes to the Ecumenical Council and who goes to the Church Meeting or Meeting for Clearness.
The answer is not holiness but the willing to trust the unpowerful to be part of the decision-making process.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm aware of that, Jengie.
You weren't going to get Joe Bloggs or Mavis Arkwright at an Ecumenical Council in the 4th or 5th centuries, were you?
That doesn't mean that Mavis Arkwright or Joe Bloggs aren't 'powerful' in some way within their own contexts at Wragg Street URC last Wednesday or the Blenkinsthorpe Friends worship meeting for clearness next Thursday evening ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I once met a police officer who was an elder in a Congregational chapel (not URC) in Yorkshire. He spent much of the conversation banging on and on and on about the evils of the nasty, wicked CofE system and how it didn't allow people to have their say and take control ... and at the same time disparaging the minister of his church for having a 'nervous breakdown' despite the fact that he 'didn't do any work' ...
I thought, 'Blimey, if I were an 'ordinary' member of that congregation, let alone the minister, I think I'd have a nervous breakdown too ...'
The 'powerful' aren't always the ones with the dog-collars or the pointy hats ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm aware of that, Jengie.
You weren't going to get Joe Bloggs or Mavis Arkwright at an Ecumenical Council in the 4th or 5th centuries, were you?
That doesn't mean that Mavis Arkwright or Joe Bloggs aren't 'powerful' in some way within their own contexts at Wragg Street URC last Wednesday or the Blenkinsthorpe Friends worship meeting for clearness next Thursday evening ...
Yes but Jenna the twelve-year-old from the estate who came into membership last communion is able to come, speak and vote at Church meeting. It is not that her voice will be weighted equally with Joe Bloggs or Mavis Arkwright but that it is weighted at all, that is surprising.
Her younger brother Ed who just happens to be in her care the day of church meeting can come and speak although not vote.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well bully for her.
Seriously, it's good that she can vote but I can't help but wonder what difference it makes in the overall scheme of things - it's not as if anyone gives a flying fart what you do or don't get up to in the URC.
I'm reminded of a story I heard from the boss of a once well-known Yorkshire advertising agency. When he first started out he made a presentation to the boss of a large textile firm.
When he'd finished the textile magnate leaned back in his chair and said, 'Well lad, that's all very good but it strikes me that all this advertising and PR is like pissing thissen in a thick worsted suit. It gives tha a nice warm feeling but no other bugger realises tha'rt doin' it.'
A similar thing applies, I think, to CofE synods and URC style congregational meetings. At least the Quakers have some enigmatic silence on their side.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Seriously, Jenna's involvement and ability to vote is clearly a good thing - and I'm sure will be of benefit in an holistic way.
I was being somewhat sarky and rhetorical earlier - of course there are differences between full-on Ecumenical Councils or Synods and congregational forms of church government and decision-making.
No need for anyone to get defensive about their own system.
It's somewhat tangential to the OP. Doublethink and the other Friends have given pretty clear explanations as to what might have happened there - and also why the Quakers adopt the particular position they have done on these issues.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Jenna the twelve-year-old from the estate who came into membership last communion is able to come, speak and vote at Church meeting. ...
Her younger brother Ed who just happens to be in her care the day of church meeting can come and speak although not vote.
If I may nit-pick a bit, that wouldn't be true in all Congregationalist (or even, I suspect, URC) churches by any means. Some would have a rule which only allows membership to (say) over-16s or -18s others do not allow non-members to attend Church Meetings, let alone speak in them.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Jenna's involvement and ability to vote is clearly a good thing - and I'm sure will be of benefit in an holistic way.
A tangent, but I disagree. The occasional practice of baptists and other non-conformists to bring in young teenagers to church membership is often, if not nearly always, destructive.
[ 16. December 2015, 08:42: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Jenna's involvement and ability to vote is clearly a good thing - and I'm sure will be of benefit in an holistic way.
A tangent, but I disagree. The occasional practice of baptists and other non-conformists to bring in young teenagers to church membership is often, if not nearly always, destructive.
These days - with most (if not all) churches having charitable status - a church meeting serves a wider function than simply "discovering and following the mind of Christ."
Wise though some (and I emphasise some) teenagers may be, the legal constitution of any church meetings suggests that any decisions which have a financial implication should only be made by those in a legal position to give assent. Currently only those of sound mind and aged 18 or over can enter into a financial contract. Any church meeting making a financial decision based on the voting "rights" of members under the age of majority is breaking the law, however much the under 18's may contribute to the discussion.
I'm sort of with Mr Cheesy on this one - take extreme care. At best make those members under 18 part of the church and encourage them in every way. help them to learn good community guidance and governance by being observors at church meetings until they are 18. Make sure that you talk to them about their experiences and impressions after every meeting they attend.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Now that is most helpful and, I confess, brings to the fore an issue I had not thought of - although I suspect that the legal responsibility finally lies in the hands of the Trustees (usually Minister and Elders/Deacons).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Interesting ... I must admit I've got come across under 18s in Baptist church meetings myself - can't speak for the URC.
My point was a more general one - if done in a 'citizenship' type way it could be a good thing.
All these things depend on a wide range of factors and circumstances.
In my restorationist house-churchy days we used to scoff at congregational style church meetings - but when I encountered them again after 18 years in that scene I found them a breath of fresh air.
Depends where you're starting from.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Now that is most helpful and, I confess, brings to the fore an issue I had not thought of - although I suspect that the legal responsibility finally lies in the hands of the Trustees (usually Minister and Elders/Deacons).
It's a moot point which, to my knowledge, has not been tested. Trustees could always argue from a position that says that a decision made in good faith on the basis of the commitment given by the church, passes the responsibility back to the individual members.
With the new CIO's (Charitable Incorporated Organisations), Trustees liability is non existent and the onus is very much on those who direct them.
Under no circumstances should non members vote but there are no objections to their being present as observers and, if specifically invited, to speak at the meeting. They cannot however propose or second matters to be voted on.
We have meetings which are members only but on broader issues, where we seek a wide variety of opinions, we have whole congregation forums, often with invited guests from the ommunity or beyond. (About twice a year). These provide opportunities for gathering infrmation and discussion which usually result in a decision made at a subsequent members'meeting. The discussions at the fora are focussed and often driven by a pre circulated set of key issues/questions for guidance and to avoid tangents.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Interesting ... I must admit I've got come across under 18s in Baptist church meetings myself - can't speak for the URC.
My point was a more general one - if done in a 'citizenship' type way it could be a good thing.
All these things depend on a wide range of factors and circumstances.
In my restorationist house-churchy days we used to scoff at congregational style church meetings - but when I encountered them again after 18 years in that scene I found them a breath of fresh air.
Depends where you're starting from.
Restorationist government is fine but the real test is when an elder driven decision or initiative goes wrong. There's beena disturbing tendancy over the years to adopt a blame game or exercise deflection rather than accepting responisbility. It's not unique to restorationist or any denominational grouping - it's just that the history and psyche of restorationalism makes it rather more likely. Less checks and balances and all that.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
